Talk:Persecution of Muslims/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Accuracy dispute

Sources for many parts of this article are missing. Several problem statements have been marked. Can anyone source those?

I just verified the source related to persecution of Muslims by the Sikh Empire, and the pages cited in the book being quoted does not make any mention the purported slaughter of innocent women and children by Banda Singh Bahadur.

The pages references in the sources, reference a time in history before Sikhism even existed.

After further research, there are conflicting claims regarding the events which took place, and other sources indicate that only military personnel were killed during the battles. -- User:Deep12345789 (talk) 02:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Deep12345789: Thanks for raising the issues. I don't see that the page is protected. So, please tag whatever is wrong with appropriate tags.

• If page number is missing, you can add {{page needed}}.
• If the information is not in the source, you can add {{not in source}}

It is hard to know what you are referring to otherwise. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I have added the page numbers buried in the URLs. Please check them and add the "not in source" tags where necessary. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kautilua3, where do I add the '{{not in source}}' text? In the article itself? Sorry if this is an obvious question. I am new to Wikipedia editing. I also did further research and sourced article below puts into question the claims of the author (Mohd Latif) being sourced for the section in question.

• https://www.sikhnet.com/news/banda-singh-bahadur-his-relations-muslims

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deep12345789 (talk • contribs)

Yes, you should add them in the article itself, right after the citations that claim to justify some content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Multiple issues

As I see it (I just came here for information), the article has a multiple issues problem. It does not descern between "persecution because of the muslim faith" and other forms of mass murder or ethnic cleansing. Moreover, soms anti-moslim incidents and forms of religieus hatred are included, which may or may not be part of religious persecution. Some forms of religious persecution may not lead to casualties but to forced conversion, secrecy or expulsion, others do. And it would be nice if someone could make a non-partisan calculation how many muslims are persecuted now because of their faith.Otto S. Knottnerus (talk) 09:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

"how many muslims are persecuted now because of their faith" Would this include the "heretics" persecuted by other Muslims? Sunni and Shia Muslings have been attacking each other for over a millennium, and other sects are often persecuted minorities. Dimadick (talk) 10:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Almohads caracterization

>The Almohads, a fanatic north African sect, pushed the boundaries of religious intolerance during their occupation of al-Andalus, affecting also the Jews.[45]

The whole Iberian Peninsula section reeks of bias (as does much of the rest of the page), but I thought I'd just mention this line. The source in [45] is basically a blog, and nowhere in the wikipedia article for the Almohads are they caracterized as a fanatic sect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.86.51.139 (talk) 13:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP, you are right that the source is not optimum, but it is well-documented that the Almohads were in relation to the Umayyads intolerant, and in fact their "convert, leave or die" message to the Jews and Christians is unique in Muslim history: even ISIS respect the People of the Book designation from the Quran to those groups. The famous Andalusi Jewish scholar Maimonides was the most illustrious of those who fled to more tolerant Muslim lands, in his case Egypt. Here is a 2010 academic source https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17546559.2010.495289?scroll=top&needAccess=true&journalCode=ribs20 though I struggle to see why this is in the article anyway as this article is on Muslims being persecuted, not persecuting Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Sétif massacre.jpeg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

'train' of citations

In some places within this article, there are 'train' of citations which are possibly redundant WP:CITEKILL. We could remove some of those redundant citations, or, if we really need to keep them, please wrap them with Template:Refn like {{refn| all the citations }} which cleans the article. Like this edit diff for example. Wiki Linuz (Ping me!) 15:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, the early Islam section is so weird and ahistorical nonsense. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Persecution by sects of Islam

I notice the article Persecution of Christians exhaustively lists persecution of any Christian sect, even by other Christian sects. Yet this article is very strictly limited to persecution of Muslims by non Muslims (except the incident in Azerbaijan?). I think there are many notable events of history of Islamic sects being persecuted that should be noted in the article, least of which being the persecution of early Shia Muslims during the Umayyad Caliphate LutherVinci (talk) 07:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

"Partholofical"?

From the article:

Zass' forces referred to all Circassian elderly, children women and men as "Bandits, "plunderers" or "thieves" and the Russian empire's forces were commanded by ferociously partholofical officers who commanded political dissidents and criminals.

I cannot find partholofical in any dictionary and google searches for it turn up copy & pastes from this wiki page. Seems like a typo but I don't think that "pathological" would fit. Any ideas?

Amalamagama69 (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)amalamagama

Delhi riots

@Kautilya3: I had redirected in my edit summary to the main page of 2020 Delhi riots, where these edits were rejected and failed to get consensus on Talk:2020_Delhi_riots#Revert. Why they have to be added here?

The Time's article goes in lengths to talk about activities since 2002 Gujarat riots while adding the views of the authors. It talks about issues such as alleged detention camps in Assam, 2002 Gujarat riots, CAA, etc.

While the article emerged in the wake of 2020 Delhi riots and provided information about it, (see WP:RECENTISM) the editor who added it has plainly cherrypicked the views in order to cast the outrage as specific to Delhi riots.

Hansen talks about "The trend we see across India is that a lot of the violence perpetrated against Muslims" so how this is specific to 2020 Delhi riots?

The paragraph for Sumantra Bose's comment actually say:

"When he was elected in 2014, there was a sharp uptick in lynchings of Muslims. Since being reelected with an even bigger majority in May 2019, his government has “moved on to larger-scale, if still localized, state-sanctioned mob violence,” says Sumantra Bose, professor of international and comparative politics at the London School of Economics. “This is a natural progression, given the nature, logic and purpose of the Modi-Shah government.”"

How this is specific to 2020 Delhi riots?

While the last article from France24, which is itself so affected with WP:RECENTISM that it mentions 24 deaths, when 53 deaths took place, starts with:

“Since December, you’ve had relatively consistent demonstrations going on in Delhi and then in many other towns in India as well,” a senior lecturer at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, told FRANCE 24. “These were completely non-violent demonstrations, in which women had taken part in large numbers. This became far more volatile when the BJP, especially its senior leader Amit Shah – also the home [interior] minister – as well as leading BJP politicians in Delhi began to use the protests against the citizenship act as part of their campaign for the Delhi state elections.”

He is clearly talking about the overall CAA protests, than simple 2020 Delhi riots.

Now unless we are going to mention what happened since 2002, there should be really no place for this content on a section called "2020 Dehli riots".

If you are still interested in endorsing these cherrypicked statements then you should better get consensus on Talk:2020_Delhi_riots#Revert first because this article is supposed to be abused for parking rejected content from the main article. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 13:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

None of this has to be specific to Delhi riots. This page is on Persecution of Muslims. Are the sources not talking about persecution of Muslims? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

It was posted under the heading of "2020 Delhi riots".

I have moved the first paragraph to the main section since it concerns more than 2020 Delhi riots as I explained and I removed the 2nd paragraph because of WP:RECENTISM. One source counted 25 deaths and another one counted 24 deaths. The articles were published 26 February about 3 days before the violence actually ended. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 18:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: You are the one who is making no sense here. The para also talks about 2002 Gujarat riots and "The trend we see across India is that a lot of the violence perpetrated against Muslims". Are you going to paste this paragraph on 2002 Gujarat riots section as well? Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 18:46, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

We don't need any subsections. These are country summaries. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Then why you are adding it back to "2020 Delhi riots" when I moved it right above "2002 Gujarat riots" section which belongs to country summaries?

You should also describe your restoration of the 2nd paragraph which includes sources from 26 February, 3 days before the violence actually ended. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 19:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Aman, the revert this morning is the first edit you ever made to this page. Why are you talking as if you are veteran? As far as I can see, your only interest seems to be to keep the Delhi riots "section" as small as possible. There is no such need. And, there is no need for any source to wait until the riot is declared to have ended. You are making completely spurious arguments. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Why do you believe that a person becomes expert on a subject by editing the Wikipedia article? It is not true.

Read WP:RECENTISM and WP:AGEMATTERS. You are supposed to find more recent sources when you are dealing with a subject who's aspects have been more accurately covered by the reliable sources. It is a nobrainer that we shouldn't be basing our information on outdated sources. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 20:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

These sources and the text they source, if there is no rs, need to be removed

The New York Post, the Daily Sabah and the International Business Times. See their entries at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Doug Weller talk 15:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

The "criticism" section of the China part of this article

Per my edit explanation about why I had most of this section removed:

"removed huge parts of this out of place "criticism" section that seems inordinately concerned about explaining Zuo Zongtang's conduct and the context of Hui/Uyghurs relations. This kind of extensive analysis is better placed in relevant articles relating to Zuo, the Dungan revolts, Hui-Uyghur relations, etc., but NOT in a page specifically about the persecution of Muslims." XTheBedrockX (talk) 05:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Under "Current situation"

"It seems to me that incidental current event don't qualify as persecution, rather news worthy, but not article worthy. I'd say some Muslims Terrorists have been persecuting Britain, US, and other places with attack bombers such as the Boston Marathon attack, I'd bet that Muslims would disown individual incident as such, that being the case then they also need to disown individual incidents as persecution because it is not, that is like saying US persecutes black people because there has been some reports where police officers have killed some black persons, it is not the case it it shouldn't be the case to try to play the victim here either. I think the whole "Current situation (1989 to present)" needs to go away."

Legitimizing the persecution of Muslims with the pretext of terrorism(while glancing over the political aspect of it), is like blaming ordinary German people for the Holocaust. Muslims have been target to Propaganda ever since public support for conflict in the Middle East have been a priority. In other words persecution of Muslims is unjustifiable, inhumane, stupid and also a testament of immense hypocrisy by the Israelis that have been financing Islamophobia as a mean of boosting the west's support for Israel, among other nations involved.